Indian Muslims' isolationist and exclusivist mentality: History and Present

[CricketCartoons]

Part I (covering the time of framing of constitution).


The common myth is that those muslims who demanded partition and got Pakistan, were the ones who wanted to live by Islamic laws, while the Indian muslims chose to stay in India because they wanted to live a secular nation.

Although the beginning of this mentality is much further in history, let's start from around independence and post independence, as we are focussing only on Indian muslims.

Before the constitution was framed, there were many debates in the Constituent Assembly (lasting 2 years and 11 months). Ignoring the muslim members who quit during partition, the prominent post independence muslim members, and their views during the debate were:

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (famous for inquilab zindabad):

Any attempt to introduce a uniform civil code will be an infringement on the religious freedom of Muslims and will not be acceptable.

Tajamul Hussain (Bihar):

The Constitution guarantees religious freedom, and that must include the freedom to follow our personal laws. Secularism should mean the state has no religion, but it must also mean that the state does not interfere with the religion of the people.

Mohammad Ismail (Madras):

It is not the intention of the Muslim community that their personal law should be altered, nor should the uniform civil code apply to them, because it would be an interference with their religious practices, which are an integral part of their life.

Our personal law is based on the Quran and we must retain it. Any attempt to tamper with it will affect our religion and identity, which we cannot compromise.

Z.H Lari (UP):

Muslims have always had their personal law and that must be respected. It is not just a set of rules but part of our identity and religious practice. The state should not compel us to give up our personal law.

Pocker Sahib (Madras):

But if it is intended that the aspiration of the State should be to override all these provisions and to have uniformity of law to be imposed upon the whole people on these matters which are dealt with by the Civil Courts Acts in the various provinces, well, I would only say, Sir, that it is a tyrannous provision which ought not to be tolerated;

Even assuming that the majority community is of this view, I say, it has to be condemned and it ought not to be allowed, because, in a democracy, as I take it, it is the duty of the majority to secure the sacred rights of every minority. It is a misnomer to call it a democracy if the majority rides rough-shod over the rights of the minorities. It is not democracy at all; it is tyranny.

Naziruddin Ahmad (Bengal):

What the British in 175 years failed to do or was afraid to do, what the Muslims in the course of 500 years refrained from doing, we should not give power to the State to do all at once.

Mahboob Ali Baig (Madras):

I wish to submit that they are overlooking the very important fact of the personal law being so much dear and near to certain religious communities. As far as the Mussalmans are concerned, their laws of succession, inheritance, marriage and divorce are completely dependent upon their religion.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (considered a secularist). Although he was among the most prominent, I kept him for the end to show that even a so called secularist and a moderate muslim and the first education minister of India, also believed that state should not interfere in muslims personal laws.

In safeguarding the rights of minorities, we safeguard the fabric of India. A community's culture, language, and laws are its identity.

It is the primary duty of every citizen to promote the well-being of the country and the nation. But that duty must not interfere with his religious and personal freedoms.

 

[RexRex]

Part I (covering the time of framing of constitution).


The common myth is that those muslims who demanded partition and got Pakistan, were the ones who wanted to live by Islamic laws, while the Indian muslims chose to stay in India because they wanted to live a secular nation.

Although the beginning of this mentality is much further in history, let's start from around independence and post independence, as we are focussing only on Indian muslims.

Before the constitution was framed, there were many debates in the Constituent Assembly (lasting 2 years and 11 months). Ignoring the muslim members who quit during partition, the prominent post independence muslim members, and their views during the debate were:

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (famous for inquilab zindabad):



Tajamul Hussain (Bihar):



Mohammad Ismail (Madras):





Z.H Lari (UP):


Pocker Sahib (Madras):




Naziruddin Ahmad (Bengal):



Mahboob Ali Baig (Madras):



Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (considered a secularist). Although he was among the most prominent, I kept him for the end to show that even a so called secularist and a moderate muslim and the first education minister of India, also believed that state should not interfere in muslims personal laws.

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is .. but you need to define secularism first, since you have mentioned it several times here.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is .. but you need to define secularism first, since you have mentioned it several times here.

This thread has nothing to do with secularism. And frankly, this is above your pay grade.

 

[RexRex]

This thread has nothing to do with secularism. And frankly, this is above your pay grade.

You mentioned the word four times in your opening post, including in the very first line lol.

 

[CricketCartoons]

KM Munshi and BR Ambedkar presented many arguments in favour of uniform civil code. Presenting one by KM Munshi:

There is one important consideration which we have to bear in mind–and I want my Muslim friends to realise this–that the sooner we forget this isolationist outlook on life, it will be better for the country. Religion must be restricted to spheres which legitimately appertain to religion, and the rest of life must be regulated, unified and modified in such a manner that we may evolve, as early as possible a strong and consolidated nation. Our first problem and the most important problem is to produce national unity in this country. We think we have got national unity. But there are many factors–and important factors–which still offer serious dangers to our national consolidation, and it is very necessary that the whole of our life, so far as it is restricted to secular spheres, must be unified in such a way that as early as possible, we may be able to say, “Well, we are not merely a nation because we say so, but also in effect, by the way we live, by our personal law, we are a strong and consolidated nation”. From that point of view alone, I submit, the opposition is not, if I may say so, very well advised. I hope our friends will not feel that this is an attempt to exercise tyranny over a minority; it is much more tyrannous to the majority.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Part I (covering the time of framing of constitution).


The common myth is that those muslims who demanded partition and got Pakistan, were the ones who wanted to live by Islamic laws, while the Indian muslims chose to stay in India because they wanted to live a secular nation.

Although the beginning of this mentality is much further in history, let's start from around independence and post independence, as we are focussing only on Indian muslims.

Before the constitution was framed, there were many debates in the Constituent Assembly (lasting 2 years and 11 months). Ignoring the muslim members who quit during partition, the prominent post independence muslim members, and their views during the debate were:

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (famous for inquilab zindabad):



Tajamul Hussain (Bihar):



Mohammad Ismail (Madras):





Z.H Lari (UP):


Pocker Sahib (Madras):




Naziruddin Ahmad (Bengal):



Mahboob Ali Baig (Madras):



Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (considered a secularist). Although he was among the most prominent, I kept him for the end to show that even a so called secularist and a moderate muslim and the first education minister of India, also believed that state should not interfere in muslims personal laws.

In 2024, i am amazed Muslims have voting right in Bharat.

 

[CricketCartoons]

In 2024, i am amazed Muslims have voting right in Bharat.

Dr BR Ambedkar even said in the assembly, that the Indian muslim members are speaking the same language that Muslim League was asking from the British, and after partition those demands are not valid. Hindus had full majority, but seeing opposition from muslim members, they conceded that we will not make it a law, but put it in Directive Principles, so that it becomes a guiding light and not enforceable at present.

But this is only part 1. There is more to come.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Will wait for further parts before responding

 

[KB]

Part I (covering the time of framing of constitution).


The common myth is that those muslims who demanded partition and got Pakistan, were the ones who wanted to live by Islamic laws, while the Indian muslims chose to stay in India because they wanted to live a secular nation.

Although the beginning of this mentality is much further in history, let's start from around independence and post independence, as we are focussing only on Indian muslims.

Before the constitution was framed, there were many debates in the Constituent Assembly (lasting 2 years and 11 months). Ignoring the muslim members who quit during partition, the prominent post independence muslim members, and their views during the debate were:

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (famous for inquilab zindabad):



Tajamul Hussain (Bihar):



Mohammad Ismail (Madras):





Z.H Lari (UP):


Pocker Sahib (Madras):




Naziruddin Ahmad (Bengal):



Mahboob Ali Baig (Madras):



Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (considered a secularist). Although he was among the most prominent, I kept him for the end to show that even a so called secularist and a moderate muslim and the first education minister of India, also believed that state should not interfere in muslims personal laws.

There is an interesting point here, though it needs some qualification upfront. We should acknowledge, that some of these figures that are quoted had been or were at the time Muslim Leaguers - Mohammad Ismail, Z.H Lari and Pocker Sahib. We should also acknowledge that Indian Muslims were not an undifferentiated community with a single view.

This said, if we focus on the leadership, it is relevant to the story that the idea of separate personal law was a key component of the ‘nationalist Muslim’ position in Colonial India and this made it harder to discount after partition.

Here a distinction between Muslim modernists and ulama is helpful. To be sure, not all ulama were ‘nationalist Muslims’ or sympathisers of the Congress. Nor did all modernists become ‘separatists’ or supporters of the Muslim League. The picture was far messier than this binary would imply. But it is clear that it was the modernists who spearheaded the campaign for Pakistan and it was from the ranks of of the ulama - particularly those associated with the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind - that the most vociferous Muslim voices were raised against Partition.

The modernists had a very different understanding of the Muslim community to the ulama. Though of course it is a diverse group, in general we might state that they emphasised the ethical, ecumenical and aspirational dimensions of Islam. In case of the reformist ulama, in particular those associated with the Deoband movement, the Muslim community was defined above all by the adherence to the shari’a.

When it came to the Pakistan demand many (though not all) of the ulama denounced it in harsh terms, none more so than Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani. Madani himself had a strong “commitment to a system of separate personal laws,” in the words of historian Barbara Metcalf, who has written a sympathetic study on Madani (with a telling subtitle: The Jihad for Islam and India's Freedom). As Metcalf writes, “Madani imagined India…as a congeries of communities relatively encapsulated in their individual languages, cultures, education and moral/legal systems…Thus, Muslims would be a ‘community’, guided by religious leadership, following distinctive educational, cultural and legal paths from other religiously defined communities who would do the same.”

An interesting recent work is the book by Pratinav Anil - Another India. For Anil, amongst the ‘nationalist Muslim’ leadership there was an “unflinching belief” in juridification. As indicated above, even before partition many Congress supporting Muslims envisaged India as a “juristic ghetto” where Muslims would be independent of the state and governed by the shari’a. In the post-independent period the Muslim elite retained an attachment to Muslim personal law and more generally to symbols of Muslim culture but, according to Anil, paid insufficient attention to the political, social and economic advancement of the wider Muslim community. For Anil, these elite Muslims “betrayed” the Muslim community with its focus on depoliticisation and juridification rather than on the political and material uplift of the community as a whole.

 

[Champ_Pal]

At the core, for a believing person in Islam, the religion matters first. There is no point in arguing over and over this part again. Even if they say, they love the country they live in, their religion still matters more to them. They believe in after life and Kabr ki Azaab strongly. They have to follow the divine guidance which is obviously greater than any man made law for them.
Hinduism is strongly tied to Janm Bhoomi and Karm Bhoomi. In most Hindus case it is India. To Hindus the country and the land is as important as the religion they follow.

Poor secular Muslims, they are stuck between the two. Religious Muslims question their Imaan and non-Muslims question their loyalty towards the country.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Here a distinction between Muslim modernists and ulama is helpful. To be sure, not all ulama were ‘nationalist Muslims’ or sympathisers of the Congress. Nor did all modernists become ‘separatists’ or supporters of the Muslim League. The picture was far messier than this binary would imply. But it is clear that it was the modernists who spearheaded the campaign for Pakistan and it was from the ranks of of the ulama - particularly those associated with the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind - that the most vociferous Muslim voices were raised against Partition.

The modernists had a very different understanding of the Muslim community to the ulama. Though of course it is a diverse group, in general we might state that they emphasised the ethical, ecumenical and aspirational dimensions of Islam. In case of the reformist ulama, in particular those associated with the Deoband movement, the Muslim community was defined above all by the adherence to the shari’a.

I agree that muslim leaders and ulema had a lot of diversity among their views. There is no doubt on that. My position is, that even with the nuances and diversity of thought, they all agreed that muslim personal laws should be protected from state interference. Whether Muslim League, or Indian National Congress, or independents.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Which effectively means that the State of India, effectively ignores the women rights and the rights of the marginalized within the muslim community. Because the muslim leaders had decided that their system was perfect and doesn't need any state reform. KM Munshi and others gave the arguments that many hindu laws and muslim laws are not fair for women and the weaker section among their community, so it cannot be an argument that the state should look the other eye, because leaders think that their religion based laws needed to meddling.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Which effectively means that the State of India, effectively ignores the women rights and the rights of the marginalized within the muslim community. Because the muslim leaders had decided that their system was perfect and doesn't need any state reform. KM Munshi and others gave the arguments that many hindu laws and muslim laws are not fair for women and the weaker section among their community, so it cannot be an argument that the state should look the other eye, because leaders think that their religion based laws needed to meddling.

The State of India is not secular, so there is no argument here. Just as they don't interfere with women's rights within Sikh religion they follow a similar path with regard to Islam.

I have not read the works of those scholars cited, but many hardcore Muslims of India believed that even creating a separate nation of Pakistan was not condoned by religion.

 

[finalfantasy7]

Muslims can't be VC india:

‘Muslim can’t become VC in India’: Arshad Madani contrasts mayors in NYC and London; Udit Raj’s ‘America is great’ response | Faridabad News - The Times of India

\"A Muslim Mamdani can become mayor of New York, a Khan can become mayor of London, whereas in India, no one can even become a university vice-chancellor,\" said Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani on Saturday.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Still as hard as ever being a muslim in india.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I miss this brother. I hope he has finally converted to Islam and will be back soon to tell us about his journey. His wit and intellect is missed on Sanghis.

It was quite poetic, he promised us a three-part thread and disappeared after part 1.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I miss this brother. I hope he has finally converted to Islam and will be back soon to tell us about his journey. His wit and intellect is missed on Sanghis.

It was quite poetic, he promised us a three-part thread and disappeared after part 1.

Yes, he was a subtle poster

 

[Champ_Pal]

Muslims can't be VC india:

‘Muslim can’t become VC in India’: Arshad Madani contrasts mayors in NYC and London; Udit Raj’s ‘America is great’ response | Faridabad News - The Times of India

\"A Muslim Mamdani can become mayor of New York, a Khan can become mayor of London, whereas in India, no one can even become a university vice-chancellor,\" said Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani on Saturday.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Still as hard as ever being a muslim in india.

Can a Hindu or Christian become the PM, President of Pakistan?

There is no law India that prohibits Muslims from occupying the highest positions in the country.

 

[RexRex]

Yes, he was a subtle poster

He was one of the few, if not the only, poster on here who could make an intellectual defense of the RSS and why India should be a hindu rashtra. I think I managed to poke a few holes in his some of his theories though.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

He was one of the few, if not the only, poster on here who could make an intellectual defense of the RSS and why India should be a hindu rashtra. I think I managed to poke a few holes in his some of his theories though.

He was the one who turned @JaDed into a right winger before our eyes. Jaded went hard right during cartoons tenure here and then back to normal after he left

In my eyes he is One of the PP GOATs, a very intelligent poster.

 

[finalfantasy7]

Can a Hindu or Christian become the PM, President of Pakistan?

There is no law India that prohibits Muslims from occupying the highest positions in the country.

@Champ_Pal - yet another indian with poor english skills, article doesn't state that thr has to be a law which prevents this, talking about the normal mindset in india

 

[Champ_Pal]

I miss this brother. I hope he has finally converted to Islam and will be back soon to tell us about his journey. His wit and intellect is missed on Sanghis.

It was quite poetic, he promised us a three-part thread and disappeared after part 1.

Why will he convert to Islam? What will he get from it?
He was critical of Hindus not standing up to invaders from west. That’s all I get from some of his posts.

 

[Champ_Pal]

@Champ_Pal - yet another indian with poor english skills, article doesn't state that thr has to be a law which prevents this, talking about the normal mindset in india

Mindset is what counts on the voting day.
Victim mentality is pretty strong here.

Now tell me, can a Hindu or Christian become the PM of Pak?

 

[JaDed]

Mindset is what counts on the voting day.
Victim mentality is pretty strong here.

Now tell me, can a Hindu or Christian become the PM of Pak?

Dude is he an Indian, I refuse to accept anyone can all this feed from India, even I don’t get such suggestions like he does.

Like other Indians he has the right to criticise himself help us improve.

 

[finalfantasy7]

209 hate-crime cases against minorities reported in India in a month​

209 hate-crime cases against minorities reported in India in a month

209 hate-crime cases against minorities reported in India in a month

www.muslimnetwork.tv

New report documents 209 hate-crime incidents against minorities in November 2025, exposing rising hostility and state-linked discrimination across India​

NEW DELHI, India (MNTV) — India recorded 209 cases of hate crimes targeting religious and social minorities in November 2025, according to a new report published by the Justice and Empowerment of Minorities (JEM), an initiative of the influential Muslim organization Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind.

The findings highlight growing hostility and institutional bias amid rising concerns over democratic backsliding and minority safety.

The report categorizes cases into seven forms of hate-driven harm, with “Acts of Hate” — including verbal abuse, online intimidation, and community-targeted slurs — constituting the largest share at 71 cases (34 percent).

These incidents overwhelmingly affected Muslim communities, who remain the primary target of religiously motivated hostility in India. Observers say Dalits, Christians and Sikhs were also disproportionately represented among victims.

The second-largest category, “Discrimination, Exclusion and Prejudice,” accounted for 61 cases (29.2 percent), involving barriers in education, employment, housing, and public access — what analysts describe as deepening structural exclusion backed by state and private actors.

The data identifies 28 cases (13.4 percent) involving media manipulation and distortion of facts, where misinformation or inflammatory coverage was used to polarize public opinion and reinforce stereotypes.

Researchers say hostile media ecosystems have become a driving force in normalising violence and majoritarian rhetoric.

Worryingly, the report documents 18 cases (8.6 percent) of state-sponsored discriminatory practices, including targeted administrative actions, evictions and punitive policies. Human-rights advocates say such measures increasingly blur the lines between governance and political persecution.

Another 13 cases (6.2 percent) fall under police atrocities, ranging from custodial abuse to deliberate inaction during communal incidents — further fuelling accusations of institutional bias within law-enforcement agencies.

The report also recorded 10 attacks on religious spaces (4.8 percent), including vandalism and encroachment targeting mosques, madrassas and shrines, and eight incidents of physical violence (3.8 percent) such as mob assaults, lynching attempts and assault linked to religious identity.

Rights groups say the numbers represent not isolated incidents but a widening pattern of targeted violence, rising public impunity and a political climate that emboldens majoritarian aggression. They warn that India’s democratic institutions face increasing pressure as hate-driven narratives gain mainstream visibility in politics and media.

Analysts also note that many cases go unreported or unresolved due to fear of retaliation and low trust in police accountability, suggesting the real scale may be significantly higher.




@Rajdeep @sweep_shot @Champ_Pal @JaDed @Devadwal @straighttalk @The Bald Eagle @BouncerGuy @the Great Khan @HalBass9 @Vikram1989 @Theanonymousone @uppercut @Vikram1989 @HalBass9 @RexRex - when are the hindus ever going to be tolerant to muslims.......... since independence do you believe the violence has increased on muslims

when will India grow up

 

[finalfantasy7]

forgot you @cricketjoshila

 

[Theanonymousone]

May be India can stop being secular. Given the current state, minorities have more benefits in every facet of life in India be it education, healthcare etc compared to non-minorities.

For some reason, Muslims always wants to play the religious card at every turn in India, when almost 100% of the muslim countries are non-secular themselves.

It is truly the Indian constitution benevolence that provides this secular nature for all including Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains etc. And Hindus despite being 80% still favor secular India. I wonder, if that actually works in the long term.

As we can see the anecdotal evidence that Muslims do not favor a secular country once they are in Majority. Thats the primary issue driving the wedge here. The impact of non-India muslims on Indian Muslims!

 

[uppercut]

@Rajdeep @sweep_shot @Champ_Pal @JaDed @Devadwal @straighttalk @The Bald Eagle @BouncerGuy @the Great Khan @HalBass9 @Vikram1989 @Theanonymousone @uppercut @Vikram1989 @HalBass9 @RexRex - when are the hindus ever going to be tolerant to muslims.......... since independence do you believe the violence has increased on muslims

when will India grow up

Its the other way around. And here are some well known atrocities from just within our lifetimes ( forget 1947 ) that prove my point:

What was your expectation of the situation to be like in the backdrop of well known atrocities like these below:

1. 26 Hindus gunned down point blank in front of their families AFTER being asked to pull their pants down to confirm they were Not-Muslims. This happened just 6 months ago
2. Dogged refusal to vacate extremely sacred Hindu temples that they occupy ( Ram Janmabhoomi in the past and Mathura, Kashi etc even today !! )
3. Godhra train burning where 59 Hindus ( mostly women and children) were burnt alive in broad daylight by Muslim mob.
4. Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits from the valley.
5. Just last month there was the Delhi blasts which were done by very well educated Muslims who were Doctors!! Including a woman. That tells you how even education does not address the core issue of intolerance amongst Muslims.

And the list goes on and on ( i kid you not). So I would like to know the Pakistani perspective and your expectations from the majority Hindus in India to such acts of unprovoked violence ... what else did you expect to happen in response to such hideous crimes ?

Let me guess you like @HalBass9 want FULL rights and complete freedom for Muslims in India to indulge in unrestricted religious intolerance and bigotry wherein you are allowed to violate everything sacred for Hindus ... and in return you expect nothing but willing compliance from Hindus like what happens in Pakistan .... Correct ?

So the answer to your question is it will only stop when Muslims learn to live peacefully.

Conversely imagine a situation in Pakistan where Hindus were indulging in violence against the majority and the repercussions.

 

[finalfantasy7]

Its the other way around. And here are some well known atrocities from just within our lifetimes ( forget 1947 ) that prove my point:

What was your expectation of the situation to be like in the backdrop of well known atrocities like these below:

1. 26 Hindus gunned down point blank in front of their families AFTER being asked to pull their pants down to confirm they were Not-Muslims. This happened just 6 months ago
2. Dogged refusal to vacate extremely sacred Hindu temples that they occupy ( Ram Janmabhoomi in the past and Mathura, Kashi etc even today !! )
3. Godhra train burning where 59 Hindus ( mostly women and children) were burnt alive in broad daylight by Muslim mob.
4. Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits from the valley.
5. Just last month there was the Delhi blasts which were done by very well educated Muslims who were Doctors!! Including a woman. That tells you how even education does not address the core issue of intolerance amongst Muslims.

And the list goes on and on ( i kid you not). So I would like to know the Pakistani perspective and your expectations from the majority Hindus in India to such acts of unprovoked violence ... what else did you expect to happen in response to such hideous crimes ?

Let me guess you like @HalBass9 want FULL rights and complete freedom for Muslims in India to indulge in unrestricted religious intolerance and bigotry wherein you are allowed to violate everything sacred for Hindus ... and in return you expect nothing but willing compliance from Hindus like what happens in Pakistan .... Correct ?

So the answer to your question is it will only stop when Muslims learn to live peacefully.

Conversely imagine a situation in Pakistan where Hindus were indulging in violence against the majority and the repercussions.

and the sikhs / christians/ moaists / even the dalits have been saying for enternity - you keep contradicting yourself

 

[uppercut]

and the sikhs / christians/ moaists / even the dalits have been saying for enternity - you keep contradicting yourself

So howcome the Parsi's , Sikhs and Jains are some of the most prosperous communities in India if the majority Hindus are soo intolerant towards them ?

 

[Romali_rotti]

Muslims can't be VC india:

‘Muslim can’t become VC in India’: Arshad Madani contrasts mayors in NYC and London; Udit Raj’s ‘America is great’ response | Faridabad News - The Times of India

\"A Muslim Mamdani can become mayor of New York, a Khan can become mayor of London, whereas in India, no one can even become a university vice-chancellor,\" said Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani on Saturday.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Still as hard as ever being a muslim in india.

Yes it is quite hard in India which is why Abdul Kalam became the president of India.

I long to see the day when a hindu gets a similar position in Pakistan, but I don't think i will ever see it, converts will see to it this never takes place

 

[cricket.mad]

Yes it is quite hard in India which is why Abdul Kalam became the president of India.

I long to see the day when a hindu gets a similar position in Pakistan, but I don't think i will ever see it, converts will see to it this never takes place

Why should we compare with a fundamental nation like Pakistan. No point in it

 

[Romali_rotti]

Why should we compare with a fundamental nation like Pakistan. No point in it

We have to help them see the light, tall task but shouldn't stop trying.

 

[finalfantasy7]

Yes it is quite hard in India which is why Abdul Kalam became the president of India.

I long to see the day when a hindu gets a similar position in Pakistan, but I don't think i will ever see it, converts will see to it this never takes place

hindus are converting to islam in pakistan

 

[Romali_rotti]

hindus are converting to islam in pakistan

Yes they have no choice but to follow the Arab's religion or most likely risk their chances of survival. Sad state of affairs in Pakistan..

 

[finalfantasy7]

Yes they have no choice but to follow the Arab's religion or most likely risk their chances of survival. Sad state of affairs in Pakistan..

More indian lies,

FROM HINDUISM TO ISLAM: MY EMOTIONAL REVERT STORY (WHY I LEFT EVERYTHING FOR ISLAM)​

#HindusRevertToISLAMAroundTheWorld

 

[finalfantasy7]

@Romali_rotti stop lying

 

[finalfantasy7]

How Hindu nationalists hunt down Christians for forced conversions in India​

 

[finalfantasy7]

'Hindus Should Learn From Muslim Community How They Safeguard Their Religion':​

 

[Romali_rotti]

@Romali_rotti stop lying

CJ Welerman this clown ...


Astaghfirullahĥhhhhhhh

 

[Romali_rotti]

More indian lies,

FROM HINDUISM TO ISLAM: MY EMOTIONAL REVERT STORY (WHY I LEFT EVERYTHING FOR ISLAM)​

#HindusRevertToISLAMAroundTheWorld

What does this have anything to do with the state of affairs of Hindus in pakistan ?

 

[finalfantasy7]

Hindus are converting to islam around the world.


Hinduism is dying fast in India / Pakistan / Bangladesh

 

[Romali_rotti]

Hindus are converting to islam around the world.


Hinduism is dying fast in India / Pakistan / Bangladesh

This I agree with.

Hindus are waiting in line for the Arab's god, it's just too bad Arabs look down on us and the converts

 

[finalfantasy7]

This I agree with.

Hindus are waiting in line for the Arab's god, it's just too bad Arabs look down on us and the converts

Romali can't prove this, he just writes rubbish constantly.

Hindus even in the west dont practise hinduism, they only go to the temple to talk and do busniness

 

[Romali_rotti]

Romali can't prove this, he just writes rubbish constantly.

Hindus even in the west dont practise hinduism, they only go to the temple to talk and do busniness

What you say is very true.

 

[finalfantasy7]

What you say is very true.

Ramli you've generalised a whole group of ppl and then showed 1 video,

yet you dont accept this when we point out indians / hindus / india.



#Ramali_RottiIs2Faced

 

[finalfantasy7]

Why India’s ‘bulldozer justice’ overwhelmingly targets Muslims​

Muslims in India's Assam targeted in BJP-led ethnic removals

What does it feel like to be a Muslim in Modi's India? Have they become second class citizens?​

 

[Romali_rotti]

Ramli you've generalised a whole group of ppl and then showed 1 video,

yet you dont accept this when we point out indians / hindus / india.



#Ramali_RottiIs2Faced

One example of many.

You will always be a convert to them and they will always look down on you, if you are the darker skinned convert like the Bangladeshi or a south Indian it is much worse.

I know of south Indian converts that went to fight for ISIS that were told they were too dark skinned to fight for them and gave them duties to clean the toilets, instead of getting orders to go to the battlefield.

Converts should always know their place in the hierarchy among the custodian Arabs of Islam...

 

[finalfantasy7]

One example of many.

You will always be a convert to them and they will always look down on you, if you are the darker skinned convert like the Bangladeshi or a south Indian it is much worse.

I know of south Indian converts that went to fight for ISIS that were told they were too dark skinned to fight for them and gave them duties to clean the toilets, instead of getting orders to go to the battlefield.

Converts should always know their place in the hierarchy among the custodian Arabs of Islam...

Indians Lie far too much



#NoOneBelivesIndians #Romali_RottiCantProveAnythingHeWrites

 

[Romali_rotti]

Indians Lie far too much



#NoOneBelivesIndians #Romali_RottiCantProveAnythingHeWrites

Excellent, deny all you want.

Look at your country, you have been living in denial since the creation of Pakistan, which is now is an ungettoutable mess, no future, nothing to look forward to.

 

[finalfantasy7]

Excellent, deny all you want.

Look at your country, you have been living in denial since the creation of Pakistan, which is now is an ungettoutable mess, no future, nothing to look forward to.

I'm born in UK and live here,

If Pakistan is a mess - how did they hammer you in the conflict,


#IndiaSufferingFromStockholmSyndromeByPakistanInLatestConflict + IAF=FlyingCoffins +IAF=WidowMaker

#IndiaBegUsaToStopPakistanHammeringIndia #IndiaHasMorePoorPeopleThanAnyOtherCountry

 

[HalBass9]

One example of many.

You will always be a convert to them and they will always look down on you, if you are the darker skinned convert like the Bangladeshi or a south Indian it is much worse.

I know of south Indian converts that went to fight for ISIS that were told they were too dark skinned to fight for them and gave them duties to clean the toilets, instead of getting orders to go to the battlefield.

Converts should always know their place in the hierarchy among the custodian Arabs of Islam...

Your obsession with converting people’s religion is borderline mental illness.

 

[sweep_shot]

Why should we compare with a fundamental nation like Pakistan. No point in it

Can you change your signature? India didn't win WTC.

It makes you look bad when you put fake news on your signature.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Your obsession with converting people’s religion is borderline mental illness.

Me obsessed with converting people's religion?

I have never asked anyone here to join Hinduism or why they should, matter of fact I recall my boi Captain_Rishwat made a thread about possibly converting to Hinduism a while back; I told him not to do it...

Converts here on the other hand and I feel are quite into converting ppl of other faiths..

 

[big_gamer007]

He was the one who turned @JaDed into a right winger before our eyes. Jaded went hard right during cartoons tenure here and then back to normal after he left

In my eyes he is One of the PP GOATs, a very intelligent poster.

CC and Mamoon are the only two posters who had ability to win any debate. Both were also similar in a way that they flip flopped between heel and face.

CC was supposedly a Bangladeshi, then became Bengali, then Muslim, then Hindu, then right wing Hindu so on and so forth.
I used to think it’s a publicly shared account across people, it’s nearly impossible for any normal individual to have so many personalities, maybe he was going through something.
Anyways, was a brilliant poster who knew how to get under the skin of most people. Hopefully he is safe and comes back.

 

[bk19xsa]

Hinduism is a complex mixture of diverse cultures, traditions, and religious elements, with much of its core Vedic foundation tracing back to the Aryan migration/invasion period.

Modern Hindus practice their religion in highly non uniform ways, which often makes Hinduism appear fragmented and inconsistent to others.

For most Hindus, alignment is primarily with cultural and familial practices rather than with any fixed, uniform ideology.

As a result, a Hindu's specific geography, family traditions, community customs, and regional culture largely shape them as a Hindu.

This is why Hindus remain so deeply tied to the land of India/Hindustam, even though classical Hindu scriptures do not place particularly strong emphasis on geographic exclusivity.

Ironically, this very attachment to a specific land prevents Hinduism from being truly universal. The religion will almost certainly always remain tied to the Indian subcontinent. It's literally in the name -'Hinduism'.

Hinduism is also a fast-loose tradition. One can easily identify as Hindu for a second or for a lifetime, and one can enter or leave the religion more or less at will.

While this flexibility is often celebrated, it comes at a cost of the ideology as it itself can become shallow when lacking in clear boundaries.

Any belief system that hopes to endure over centuries usually requires at least one stable, widely accepted reference point.

Because Hinduism as a whole lacks a single fixed doctrinal or scriptural authority that is universally binding, modern Hindus inevitably take India and its land, its culture, and its people as their primary reference point.

This vacuum is precisely why movements such as Hindutva, Arya Samaj, and various forms of Hindu nationalism have gained traction. They supply the forced coherence and collective identity that the broader Hindu traditions/scriptures do not inherently provide.

Many Hindus today are effectively atheistic or non-theistic, since Hinduism historically accommodates both astika (theistic) and nastika (atheistic) schools of thought under the same umbrella.

When a tradition is this unstructured and internally contradictory, it naturally creates confusion and offers little deep, sustained attraction for potential converts. Consequently, very few people outside the Indian cultural sphere ever become Hindus.

Even the most philosophically sophisticated current Hindus tend to align with postmodern relativism rather than producing new frameworks of timeless depth comparable to the deeper concepts found in ancient Vedic or Upanisad thought.

A long term persistent ideology is usually one that is internally consistent or, at the very least, openly acknowledges as well as resolves its contradictions.

Modern Hinduism, in its eagerness to embrace mutually contradictory positions (theism and atheism, monism and dualism etc), struggles to present a clear, objective core that can command long term following or loyalty.

Yesterday’s Hindus are already quite different from today’s, and tomorrow’s Hindus will be different again.

The tradition continually reinvents itself, but in doing so its risking losing the depth and cohesion that allow other world religions to endure and expand across cultures and centuries.

 

[Romali_rotti]

I'm born in UK and live here,

If Pakistan is a mess - how did they hammer you in the conflict,


#IndiaSufferingFromStockholmSyndromeByPakistanInLatestConflict + IAF=FlyingCoffins +IAF=WidowMaker

#IndiaBegUsaToStopPakistanHammeringIndia #IndiaHasMorePoorPeopleThanAnyOtherCountry

Ahhh a Britstani, that explains it.

You are a more hopeless cause than Pakistanis in Pakistan.

 

[finalfantasy7]

Ahhh a Britstani, that explains it.

You are a more hopeless cause than Pakistanis in Pakistan.

how so

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Hinduism is a complex mixture of diverse cultures, traditions, and religious elements, with much of its core Vedic foundation tracing back to the Aryan migration/invasion period.

Modern Hindus practice their religion in highly non uniform ways, which often makes Hinduism appear fragmented and inconsistent to others.

For most Hindus, alignment is primarily with cultural and familial practices rather than with any fixed, uniform ideology.

As a result, a Hindu's specific geography, family traditions, community customs, and regional culture largely shape them as a Hindu.

This is why Hindus remain so deeply tied to the land of India/Hindustam, even though classical Hindu scriptures do not place particularly strong emphasis on geographic exclusivity.

Ironically, this very attachment to a specific land prevents Hinduism from being truly universal. The religion will almost certainly always remain tied to the Indian subcontinent. It's literally in the name -'Hinduism'.

Hinduism is also a fast-loose tradition. One can easily identify as Hindu for a second or for a lifetime, and one can enter or leave the religion more or less at will.

While this flexibility is often celebrated, it comes at a cost of the ideology as it itself can become shallow when lacking in clear boundaries.

Any belief system that hopes to endure over centuries usually requires at least one stable, widely accepted reference point.

Because Hinduism as a whole lacks a single fixed doctrinal or scriptural authority that is universally binding, modern Hindus inevitably take India and its land, its culture, and its people as their primary reference point.

This vacuum is precisely why movements such as Hindutva, Arya Samaj, and various forms of Hindu nationalism have gained traction. They supply the forced coherence and collective identity that the broader Hindu traditions/scriptures do not inherently provide.

Many Hindus today are effectively atheistic or non-theistic, since Hinduism historically accommodates both astika (theistic) and nastika (atheistic) schools of thought under the same umbrella.

When a tradition is this unstructured and internally contradictory, it naturally creates confusion and offers little deep, sustained attraction for potential converts. Consequently, very few people outside the Indian cultural sphere ever become Hindus.

Even the most philosophically sophisticated current Hindus tend to align with postmodern relativism rather than producing new frameworks of timeless depth comparable to the deeper concepts found in ancient Vedic or Upanisad thought.

A long term persistent ideology is usually one that is internally consistent or, at the very least, openly acknowledges as well as resolves its contradictions.

Modern Hinduism, in its eagerness to embrace mutually contradictory positions (theism and atheism, monism and dualism etc), struggles to present a clear, objective core that can command long term following or loyalty.

Yesterday’s Hindus are already quite different from today’s, and tomorrow’s Hindus will be different again.

The tradition continually reinvents itself, but in doing so its risking losing the depth and cohesion that allow other world religions to endure and expand across cultures and centuries.

Thanks for this insightful post. For outsiders this can initially be quite confusing. Most religions are rigid and have clear boundaries of orthodoxy. Perhaps the phrase or term "Hinduism" is what leads to the confusion, and it would be easier to understand if it were referred to as a family of religions, similar to the Chinese folk religions, or native american beliefs.

Some hindus do this in a way and try to incorporate SIkhism and Jainism into this family of religions, but I think this is mainly done to exclude Muslims and show it as an outsider religion than anything else.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Some hindus do this in a way and try to incorporate SIkhism and Jainism into this family of religions, but I think this is mainly done to exclude Muslims and show it as an outsider religion than anything else.

I would say this is incorrect cuz, Islam has the least in common with Hindiusm compared to the other 2 you mentioned, which would be why.

 

[finalfantasy7]

How dangerous is it to be Muslim in India?​

Indian YT video:

The founder of Genocide Watch, Dr Gregory Stanton, believes that genocide may occur in India. How far have the stages of genocide already unfolded in the country?

 

[finalfantasy7]

Rizwan Ahmad, a Muslim man, was assaulted at a tea shop in Uttarakhand, India, after refusing to chant Hindu nationalist slogans such as “Glory to Lord Rama”. The three attackers, who also filmed the assault, pulled his beard, hurled slurs, and left him bleeding. Police filed charges the next day and arrested all three suspects.